I think it's a privilage to be able to experience ps5 resolution and frame rate in the end of ps3 era.

But then again you may have a point since most games won't push pc that hard.

A sony/xbox game can't experience this till say 2022?

can't wait for ddr4 & gddr6 next year! Should be interesting.

I can't wait for the new consoles but if bf4 is 30fps like killzone then I will laugh and buy infamous since u know.. Controllers and shooter are not good for me anyway(I need to check both side a room in less than 1.8 sec and usually that's 4 secs on console). It's like playing under water.

Dude, calm down. You ripped into consoles for no reason. He just said "waste of money" Did he say "waste of money, get a PS4"? Get that chip off of your shoulder he wasn't attacking PC's.

back to the topic at hand, isn't it a waste of money tho?

it was unoptimized code so they had to go balls out to make sure their unoptimized code would run smoothly. I'm sure when it's optimized you wont need 2x7990's and 12GB of GDDR5. I'm sure you'll be able to run the game with just 1x7990 and 4GB of GDDR5 RAM.

This PC is designed to run unoptimised pre alpha code with less than optimised driver revisions at some uber resolutions to impress everybody as much as possible. To that end, it needs to be an absolute beast.

The game won't need this sort of machine to run well, because nobody designs even PC games that won't run well on a decent array of current machines.

The game will no doubt take advantage of high end gear, but considering that Battlefield 3 was actually rather well optimised I would expect no less from this new game.

See DICE really built the game well for PC. You could run BF3 on old hardware like the Geforce 8800/9800 series and it looked good. 8800GTX comfortably managed 1080p on mix of low/medium and all low = console according to DICE which also only ran the game at 1280 x 704.

You could run it on top end stuff @ 1080p and ultra with MSAA and it ran great. In other words top end hardware didn't actually struggle with BF3 at the time, they ran it easily and it still looked superb. Still does.

@ shutUpAndTakeMyMoney, you PC fans are becoming ridiculous. It only served for exhibition purposes, but it IS a waste of money for a gamer when NO game is developed and optimized to run at those specs. Do you realize how much money this set-up costs?? So you can keep pretending that you'll be able to play your imaginary PS5 quality games today.

Why don't you guys quit pretending that PC gaming automatically means graphics and performance leaps and bounds over PS4 as if every PC gamer has a PC of the highest-end, because in reality they're the minority.

Nothing will run it 3k 60fps constant, have you seen people running just 2 monitors with 2 graphics cards? some of the games have pitiful framerates as low as 20-30.

if you want 60fps almost constantly you need 1080p, or 120fps for those who own a 120hz monitor. You will not achieve a playable framerate with 2-3 monitors any time in the near future, 1080p is the sweet spot and will be for a very long time, at least until graphics cards have a huge jump in performance. That likely won't happen as it's always something like a 20%-30% increase every major card release.

Its not joe down the blocks gaming rig. Its a gaming rig for the person who has too much money. I have a good gaming rig that runs all current games with maximum settings and it only cost a third of what that thing costs.

Two 7990's arent needed for gaming , a Core I7 is overkill. I have a CoreI5 760 , 8GB DDR3 ram and a GTX680 and I optomised windows to use as little resources as possible.

That computer is a complete waste of money for gaming. It is more suited for video rendering or games development or other stuff most gamers wont use it for.

So you don't get it either? This is not a gaming rig lol hence why I said it served its purpose. It had a purpose, and it has been served. It is a show off piece of equipment. And a Core i7 is not overkill.

You cant make up your mind can you? First you said its joe down the roads gaming rig and then you say its not. Also anybody with knowledge of gaming would tell you that a Core I7 is overkill. A core I5 is perfect because there isn't any games out yet that will use more than 4 cores of a CPU where a core I7 is 4 cores with 8 threads and a game only uses 4 of those threads or 4 cores. Its a waste.

But who are you to tell anyone what is a waste of money? I love tech, and it's my hobby to build gaming PC's. If I think it's worth it is it really a "waste of money " if i find happiness doing something i love?

Do you need all that? Of course not. But if you have the money what's the harm? I have yet to get an answer to that question.

Well said solar I feel same way been building rigs for going on decade it's endless so is the price. But there's a huge community out there that many n4gs may not realise modders and enthusiasts. It's a passion hobby lifestyle we enjoy? It also doesn't have to cost the earth like that's shown in the article but it can be easy to go crazy.

Lol well it is a waste because you cannot actually use the power that rig has-its like buying a ferrari when you'll never be able to drive it.... ever Its an exersize in feeding your own ego. Plus half those features even on a large 4k screen become barely discernable to the human eye...

Take it from poor console gamers that never owned a gaming PC...Good advice, sadly if consoles were superior to PC gaming i'd be glued to my consoles.

They arnt, they are hard to look at on the eyes; low res, bloom and jaggies. Ontop of that I can only game on them. Like wtf, waste of hardware potential. PCs do alot more then just gaming, hell they create all the games you play on consoles to boot.

PC masterace. Consoles poor mans PC.

PS. Technically that system has TWO gpus with 4 cores. I've seen worse.

Nobody ever said consoles were superior to PC's, but why must those people who own a console and not a gaming PC be poor? I for one don't own a gaming rig yet i'm very satisfied with what my bank account tells me.

Fact is if i want to look at realistic and pretty things i'd go outside or go on holiday, i play games to have fun which doesn't require me to spend anything over the price of a console.....so i'll happily play on one even if you don't like it.

Titan is the best desktop GPU at the moment with 4.5 Tflops. AMD's is at 4.3 Tflops, but not far behind. Their new 8000 lineup should push beyond 4.5 Tflops. Server CPUs go up to 5.9 Tflops for AMD and only 5.3 Tflops for NVIDIA so far.

it's best but hugely overpriced, if it weren't for micro stuttering i would buy 2 7970's because they stomp all over it and are quite a bit cheaper.

Stop gap card = Titan, price will drop like a rock soon once the next proper series starts.

Plus what's funny is the fact that even Crysis 3 can't run full 60+fps @ 1080p on the Titan and look at the cost of it, what a joke.. not that i like Crysis because it's a mediocre game with flashy graphics. Just tells me that the Titan is hugely overpriced for what it can do.

if they want to release a card like Titan and be taken seriously, it should have been 2x more powerful than it is now and that way be able to compete with proper high end cards 2 years from now, but it's a rip off as it is.

Yup definitely a waste. To be clear on why they used the most powerful thing they could find. They stated that it was a raw unoptimized Alpha build of the game. So that is why it was used. Final version should run at 30-60+ fps with PS4 specs no problem or quad core PC + decent Video card and 4 GB RAM.

The 60fps term gets thrown around a lot.. but what a lot of people don't realise is that you need a lot of power to be able to keep 60fps+ under intense scenes, so the game will need above recommended specs to run well even @ 1080p.

This is from experience. Loads of games i've played have run much better way above the recommended spec, which is stupid because they don't state you need a way higher than listed spec to keep 60fps. They won't tell you it's gonna dip to 20-30fps in intense parts if you only have recommended spec.

I am pretty confident a 2.5 Tflop card can run BF4 at 60 fps. I didn't throw a resolution out there, but pretty sure 720p is guaranteed 60 fps.

I do agree under intense scenes things have always lagged. If they are developing things like the new consoles with GPGPU type development with OpenCL + DirectX/OpenGL on your PC then your GPU cores could numb or stop that. Many cards have been carrying OpenCL for a few years now with latest DirectX/OpenGL adding in OpenCL extensions.

We knew once next gen started, it would be a beast upgrade. Like I said before, your not just making the same assets or features in 1080p 60fps, your making new assets and textures and tessellation run at a much higher frame.

No doubt it took a beast to run such a thing. This is the way of all gaming. The disagrees from people who don't care for PC gaming really just need to understand the tech more.

Whats happening with PC NOW, WON'T be BIGGER then what are in consoles Next, next gen. ie PS5 etc.

When PS3 launched, the 8800gtx came out about a year later. Clearly a PS4 beats the crap out of a 8800gtx.

Its nothing to cower over or feel like PC gamers are showing off. Its just the way gaming progress. This is good for me and you. Why disagree?

On that note, don't build fro this now, I would wait until ending of next year when all the GPU's are out and have been benchmarked right with the first wave of next gen PC games.

I'm getting a PS4 in the mean time just based on that most of those beast PC games won't be optimized right on those new GPU's for a while. I'm upgrading ending of next year.

It only requires that much horsepower because the game is in its alpha stages. By the time the game is released it will have proper drivers and require not nearly that much power. I am not saying you will be able to run it cheaply however. Most likely you will still need at minimum a Titan or dual gpu card to run it maxed at 60fps. Just not, ya know, two 7990's...

@Tultras What's with the sarcasm? I clearly stated in my comment it would not be cheap to run maxed out at a solid 60fps.

@WUTCHUGUNNADO 680 will (I assume) run the game maxed, but doubtfully keep a steady 60fps. A 680 on Frostibite 2 runs at max settings and 60fps. I imagine that the 680 wont perform as well on Frostbite 3 seeing as they are adding quite a bit of detail to the engine. Granted that is just a guess. Maybe DICE will optimize the heck out of it.

That CPU + the 2x graphics cards would set you back £1700 alone. A basic 480GTX + i5 processor can max out 99% of the games out today, why the hell would I spend £1700 to run just this 1 game? I am sure there are plenty of alternative cards and options to play this game on a PC when its out, so yes, ultimately, £1700 on a single game where most games dont even require half that power is a complete overkill and a waste of money, and this is someone who enjoys PC games.

This was about showcasing the game in a very unfinished and un optomized state. You have to brute force power things like that, and I don't think EA/DICE would spare any expence when it comes to showing off their tent pole shooter franchise for the first time.

The whole talk of the cost is either by kneejerk console only people looking to downplay the PC platform or equally kneejerk PC only/leaning people trying to justify the price of something like this.

Fact of the matter is, if you're looking to play PC Games you don't need to spend 2000+ dollars unless you're looking to do some Tri monitor monstrosity. ]

Most gamers have no life and are normally ugly...I, on the other hand, am a sexy beast. When I play my games its like magic. So handsome yet so focused on my game. Be it on my pc or my ps3...I am just astonishing! Ok...now back to the subject at hand....If youre a gamer...youre a gamer...I personally dont care if you have an atari or a pc...game with a smile...like I do...as I model for pics...

ppl need to understand that real gamers usually have a nice pc and ALSO consoles...(usually ps and xbox)

but if u dont live under a rock u know that pc is keep down in performance by the console world.....only coz developers make more money on a close system than a pc..and coz is just more easy to develop for a system that have THAT performance target than thing to dev for a scaling game that can do best on a better system and less on lower....im sure for example u would be very sad if movie makers..would have a way to block their movie..ala "if u dont have a 3d tv 55" u cant watch it on ur 36"

with the new techs coming (ie. stacked memory new gpus etc etc) pc will be light years ahead of what we will have in future ps4 and xbox...and as a pc user that use to play ALSO pc games im sad about this

i dont need a payed guerrilla pr dev come here and trying explain to me after 5 years of computer science university that a 1.84 tf system is better than a high end pc..this is just stupid as a pig that can fly...and if u r not just an total ignorant the only thing u could do is laugh hard in front of his face..saying "ok man...eheheh nice try"

optimizing code u can increase ur performance by 8 9 oh well 15% performance but u will never play in the same ball park of a pc that have 5 6 more teraflops than u....u just CANT (remember 6 teraflops r MORE than 3 ps4 taped together)

obv we will get more nice exclusives for consoles than pcs but is only for a marketing choice...not coz systems r better ..theres anything better in a console than a pc ANYTHING So before next time u spit over companies that look just for money....is better IF U first spit on EVERY first party studio that ms and sony have....coz if u think that uncharted was fantastic imagine what they could do on a real perfomance system that can do x10 x15 times more than a console...but no....they look just for money ...but as we know...fanboyism sometime make ppl blind

for this reason as i said million times in older post i was hoping (and i still hope in the new xbox) new console would come at least with something more than 2tf

the moore's law say us that every 18 months + or - chips double their performance http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... nvidia titan can do 4.6 tf on a single chip ..nvidia as we all know will put out also a double chip version for a total 9.2tf..........imagine in 2 or 3 years what will happen 15 16 tf inside or pc....that is BEASTLY but until console makers put out cheap thing as this new ps4.(and maybe the xbox)..theres nothing to be happy for ..and im talking as a gamer..coz big developers will dev their games witha that cheap 1.84tf in mind

console cant be upgraded and honestly i dont wanna pass next 5 years on a consoel that can do 1.84 tf when my pc today can do 2.6tf x2 (two gtx 660ti) knowing that i could get at least x3 times better of what u see in the last kz demo

ps. pls dont come out with the story about "coding to the metal"...both console r directx oriented (while ps4 use different api but they just try to copy directx) on pc we have millions of different setup but trust in me nowdays games can scale very good in quality so that would no be a problem